|
|
Posted by Sherman in Idaho [72.47.9.37] on Friday, August 24, 2012 at 13:01:37 :
In Reply to: Re: Humvee replacement? posted by CSCameron [68.228.198.56] on Friday, August 24, 2012 at 09:45:47 :
Of course the armor is a response to the IED threat, but I thought that's what the MRAPs were for. This is supposed to be a replacement for the HMMWV -- a general purpose truck intended for rear-echelon transport and logistics more than for front-line combat patrols.
The Europeans went through this heavy armor business with soldiers and horses 500 years or so ago, until it got so ridiculous that nobody could actually fight in all the armor they hung on everybody. Whether we're putting armor on a knight or on a truck, the fact remains that the more armor you have, the less visibility and mobility you have. Eventually you end up with a tank, which needs infantry on the ground to protect the armored vehicle, lest some brave enemy run up to the tank and stick a piece of railroad iron in the track, or throw a big paint balloon at the viewing port and pour gasoline down any gaps in the top.
Obviously the thinking is that we don't want our guys getting blown up by IEDs while their out on patrol. The catch is, if they can't really do anything while they're on patrol except drive around and avoid getting blown up, what are they really accomplishing? It seems to me it's a lot like poison gas -- the point of gas isn't to poison the enemy, it's to make him put on his NBC suits so he can hardly move around and fight. Now, the point of IEDs is to make the enemy "armor up" in big unwieldy, expensive, hard-to-maintain battle wagons. Meanwhile, the enemy, who has less money and is more willing to take casualties, puts an M2 in the back of a Toyota pickup, collects a few guys with RPGs, and runs rings around our fancy new armored trucks.
Follow Ups: